Page images
PDF
EPUB

and yet he says it was fear and not principle which prevented his killing them while they were completely in his power; and, when Colonel Chivington appeared at Fort Lyon on his mission of murder and barbarity, Major Anthony made haste to accompany him with men and artillery."

The writer of this letter says that the evidence given in this "so-called investigation" was "largely false and infamously partial." If this were the case, why did not all persons so "infamously" slandered see to it that before the year ended their own version of the affair should reach, if not the general public, at least the Department of the Interior? Why did they leave it possible for the Secretary of the Interior to incorporate in his Annual Report for 1865-to be read by all the American peoplethese paragraphs?

"No official account has ever reached this office from its own proper sources of the most disastrous and shameful occurrence, the massacre of a large number of men, women, and children of the Indians of this agency (the Upper Arkansas) by the troops under the command of Colonel Chivington of the United States Volunteer Cavalry of Colorado. ***

"When several hundred of them had come into a place designated by Governor Evans as a rendezvous for those who would separate themselves from the hostile parties, these Indians were set upon and butchered in cold blood by troops in the service of the United States. The few who escaped to the northward told a story which effectually prevented any more advances toward peace by such of the bands as were well disposed."

And why did the Government of the United States empower General Sanborn, in the Council held October 12th, 1865, with the Arapahoes and Cheyennes, including the remnants of bands that had escaped from the Sand Creek massacre, to formally and officially repudiate the action of the United States soldiers in that massacre? General Sanborn said, in this council:

"We all feel disgraced and ashamed when we see our officers or soldiers oppressing the weak, or making war on those who are at peace with us. *** We are willing, as representatives of the President, to restore all the property lost at Sand Creek, or its value. *** He has sent out his commissioners to make reparation, as far as we can. *** So heartily do we repudiate the actions of our soldiers that we are willing to give to the chiefs in their own right.320 acres of land each, to hold as his own forever, and to each of the children and squaws who lost husbands or parents;

we are also willing to give 160 acres of land as their own, to keep as long as they live."

The writer of this letter, quoting the statement from a previous article in The Tribune, that the White River Utes, in their attack on Major Thornburgh's command, fought "to defend their own lands-lands bought, owned, and paid for," asks:

66

Bought of whom, pray? Paid for by whom? To whom was payment made?”

66

66

[ocr errors]

Bought " of the United States Government, thereby recognizing the United States Government's right to "the sovereignty of the soil" as superior to the Indians' "right of occupancy." Paid for" by the Ute Indians, by repeated "relinquishments of said " right of occupancy "in large tracts of valuable lands; notably by the "relinquishment," according to the Brunot Treaty of 1873, of 4,000,000 acres of valuable lands, " unquestionably rich in mineral deposits.”—Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for 1873, p. 464.

"To whom was payment made?”

To the United States Government, which has accepted and ratified such exchanges of "right of occupancy " for "right of sovereignty," and such sales of "right of occupancy" for large sums of money by repeated and reiterated treaties.

The Secretary of the Interior has incorporated in his Annual Report for 1879 (in the report on Indian Affairs, p. 36) the following paragraphs:

"Let it be fully understood that the Ute Indians have a good and sufficient title to 12,000,000 acres of land in Colorado, and that these Indians did not thrust themselves in the way of the white people, but that they were originally and rightfully possessors of the soil, and that the land they occupy has been acknowledged to be theirs by solemn treaties made with them by the United States.

"It will not do to say that a treaty with an Indian means nothing. It means even more than the pledge of the Government to pay a bond. It is the most solemn declaration that any government of any people ever enters into. Neither will it do to say that treaties never ought to have been made with Indians. That question is now not in order, as the treaties have been made, and must be lived up to whether convenient or otherwise.

66

By beginning at the outset with the full acknowledgment of the absolute and indefeasible right of these Indians to 12,000,000

acres in Colorado, we can properly consider what is the best method of extinguishing the Indian title thereto without injustice to the Indians, and without violating the plighted faith of the Government of the United States."

The writer of this letter says:

"In withholding supplies from the White River Utes, the Secretary of the Interior is simply obeying the law. He cannot, except upon his own personal responsibility, issue supplies to a hostile Indian tribe."

Secretary Schurz has published, in the Annual Report of the Department of the Interior for 1879, the following paragraph in regard to this case of the White River Utes:

"The atrocity of the crimes committed should not prevent those individuals who are innocent from being treated as such, according to Article 17 of the treaty, viz. : Provided, that if any chief of either of the confederated bands make war against the United States, or in any manner violate this treaty in any essential part, said chief shall forfeit his position as chief, and all rights to any of the benefits of this treaty; but, provided further, any Indian of either of these confederated bands who shall remain at peace, and abide by the terms of this treaty in all its essentials, shall be entitled to its benefits and provisions, notwithstanding his particular chief and band have forfeited their rights thereto."

The writer of this letter says, in allusion to the murders and outrages committed by some of the White River Utes, that "H. H. is the champion of the fiends who wrought the ruin." Have the readers of The Tribune so understood my protests against the injustice of punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty?

New York, Feb. 22d, 1880.

H. H.

This letter was followed by a card from Mr. Byers, reiterating some of his assertions; and by a second short letter, which closed the discussion.

To the Editor of the Tribune:

SIR,-I ask only a little space for reference to the communication of "H. H." in to-day's Tribune. It is asked, "If the investigation of the Sand Creek affair was so unfair, why did not the people of Colorado correct the false impression by presenting their own version of the case?" The answer is that the case was prejudged, and we were denied a hearing in our defence.

The inference is conveyed in to-day's article that Indian hostilities on the plains were provoked by and followed after the Sand Creek massacre. We, who were so unfortunate as to be citizens of Colorado at the time, know that a very great majority of the savage atrocities of that period occurred before the battle of Sand Creek. We know that the Sand Creek Indian camp was the common rendezvous of the hostile bands who were committing those atrocities. We know that comparatively few occurred afterward. No amount of special pleading, no reiteration of partial statements, and withholding of more important truths, will change the facts so well known to the earlier settlers of Colorado.

I deny that the Utes have either bought or paid for any land. They have relinquished for a consideration a certain portion of the land they formerly claimed, and still retain the other portion. I deny, also, that only twelve of the White River Utes are guilty and the great mass of them innocent. The contrary is the fact. WM. N. BYERS.

New York, Feb. 24th, 1880.

To the Editor of the Tribune:

SIR,-In reply to the assertion that the perpetrators of the Sand Creek massacre were "denied a hearing in their defence," I wish to state to the readers of The Tribune that, in addition to the Congressional committees from whose reports I have already quoted, there was appointed a Military Commission to investigate that massacre. This commission sat seventy-three days, in Denver and at Fort Lyon. Colonel J. M. Chivington called before it, in his "defence," all the witnesses he chose, and gave notice on the seventy-third day of the commission's sitting that he did not "wish to introduce any more witnesses for the defence." He also had (and used) the privilege of cross-examining every witness called by the commission. The evidence given before this commission occupies over two hundred pages of Volume II., Senate Documents for 1866-'67.

In reply to the assertion that "a great majority of the savage atrocities of that period occurred before" the massacre at Sand Creek, and that "comparatively few occurred after," I will give to the readers of The Tribune one extract from the report of the Indian Peace Commission of 1868. Alluding to the Sand Creek massacre, the report says:

"It scarcely has its parallel in the records of Indian barbarity. Fleeing women, holding up their hands and praying for mercy,

were shot down; infants were killed and scalped in derision; men were tortured and mutilated in a manner that would put to shame the savages of interior Africa. No one will be astonished that a war ensued which cost the Government $30,000,000, and carried conflagration and death into the border settlements. During the spring and summer of 1865 no less than 8000 troops were withdrawn from the effective forces engaged in the Rebellion to meet this Indian war. ""

The Commissioners who made this report were N. J. Taylor, President; J. B. Henderson, John B. Sanborn, William T. Sherman, Lieutenant-general; William S. Harvey, Brevet Major-general; Alfred H. Terry, Brevet Major-general; C. C. Augur, Brevet Major-general; S. F. Tappan.

In reply to the assertion that the Utes have not "either bought or paid for any land," I will ask such of The Tribune readers as are interested in the subject to read the "Brunot Treaty," made September 13th, 1873, "between Felix R. Brunot, Commissioner for the United States, and the chiefs, headmen, and men" of the seven confederated bands of Utes. It is to be found in the report of the Department of the Interior for 1873, p. 454.

In conclusion of the discussion as to the Sand Creek massacre, I will relate one more incident of that terrible day. It has not been recorded in any of the reports. It was told in Colorado, to one of the members of the Senate Committee at the time of their investigation: One of the squaws had escaped from the village, and was crouching behind some low sage brush. A frightened horse came running toward her hiding-place, its owner in hot pursuit. Seeing that the horse was making directly for her shelter, and that she would inevitably be seen, and thinking that possibly if she caught the horse, and gave him back to the owner, she might thus save her life, she ran after the horse, caught it, and stood holding it till the soldier came up. Remembering that with her blanket rolled tight around her she might possibly be taken for a man, as she put into the soldier's hand the horse's bridle, with the other hand she threw open her blanket enough to show her bosom, that he might see that she was a woman. He put the muzzle of his pistol between her breasts and shot her dead; and afterward was "not ashamed" to boast of the act. It was by such deeds as this that "the Colorado soldiers acquitted themselves well, and covered themselves with glory." H. H. New York, Feb. 28th, 1880.

« PreviousContinue »